I bring this up because of the constant frustration I have with people demanding that I explain my magic system to them. It's magic that makes a person see, smell, and hear better. What more of an explanation do you need? I get the criticism. The current trend in fantasy is to use magic to explain the wider world. Spells can have a history to them, and give context clues to the wider conflict. It can make a villain into an actual real threat, and it can help establish rules of the world. Let's not mention on how a magic system can also distinguish one story from another in a very meaningful way. But I think it's frustrating when we start to not distinguish a current trend from what is an actual rule.
The very good thing about a magic system is that it sets rules for what the magic can and can't do. If you say 'it's just magic' and there is no system, pretty much anything goes, and it becomes much harder to write limits. If you are not careful, the story can turn messy very quickly, and your readers might end up finding parts of the story unbelievable and unfeasible. You really, really don't want that. Stories that don't make sense are the worst. A magic system adds a lot of depth. It's a framework that enables readers to understand what is and what isn't possible by an outline of how it works. When a character does something and its compliant with the rules of your magic system, it just makes sense and there are no questions. There are hard magic systems and then there are soft magic systems. Perhaps if you don't like too many rules, you should go for a soft one. But nothing is set in stone. You can do anything you want. The sky is the limit. The 'rulez' are simply there to make our writing lives easier and the resulted stories better. If the story works, it works. But if you're getting complaints from many of your readers, it might be a call for reconsideration. It also depends on just how heavily you involve magic in your story. If it's just a minimally used element, then no, you really don't need a system.
A rule-less magic system works fine imo. Some of my favourite writers use rule-less systems - Stephen Donaldson and Jack Vance. In those books, magic plays a big part, but magic-users are special people. You don't just wander into the local Adventurers' Guild and hire a random wizard - they're powerful, mysterious beings, and in Vance, magic can do anything, especially when faerie magic is involved. In Donaldson, magic is limited but nonetheless, not explained. It is sufficient to know that spell A is more powerful and complex than spell B, or that mage X is stronger than mage Y. It depends how you write it. If you present it like a system that looks like it should have rules, then readers will demand it. You don't have to present it like that.
Quite so. In your writing, you control the what the reader sees and lead them to the conclusion you want them to reach. You control the horizontal and the vertical. You can make them experience the awe that leads from the inner mind to...
I agree that magic systems shouldn't always have to be explained. It didn't go so well when Lucas decided to explain how people are able to use the force. Some mystery around the magic can make it more fun and intriguing. That said, I've been doing a lot of submissions over the past few months, and it seems like most fantasy magazines and agents representing fantasy writers do seem to emphasize their wants for a magic system that can be explained and makes sense within the world of the story. I'm not really sure why that is.
Interesting. My guess is that a well-explained magic system is less risky in terms of reader reactions. But that's just a guess! [Edit: I originally wrote 'character reactions' instead of 'reader reactions']
Seems to me that the need to have "rules" for a system of magic is the same old argument against the deus ex machina -- it undercuts a story if whenever a plot gets difficult or the MC or the protagonist gets in a bind, if the author can simply wave a wand and have some unexplained and totally unpredictable solution appear. To me the story loses its power if that happens. Nowhere near the same thing, but it kind of reminds me of when I taught my kid sister to play chess and she decided that her knight could, when necessary, turn into "superhorse" and fly over all my pieces and capture my king. The whole game lost its tension. Of course it was fun in an easygoing way.
Then it's really incumbent on the author not to do that. Even in a system that has rules, there's nothing to stop the author from doing it, if they want to break their own rules. If you do it, your book or story isn't going to be well received, so the only person the author is hurting is themselves. No amount of invented rules can stop that.
I think there's pros and cons to each one. I'm going to probably get everyone on this board furious with me, but I want to be open about my bias: I hate Star Wars. I really hate that franchise. It's so overrated. But part of the problem (and why I sympathize with George Lucas) was that when you don't have a very well-established magic system, it runs the risk of becoming an easy go-to plot device to get out of situations. Because who says it can't do that? I understand George Lucas, realizing that the franchise is going to continue to expand and probably realized this was potentially going to be a problem. And of course, it comes at the sacrifice of what makes the concept so unique and special. Unfortunately, that ultimately ended up happening anyway.
Nah, you are not the only one. I could never get into Star Wars. I don't hate it but I really don't like it either.
ps102 is absolutely right, and this is also the first thing that came into my head. If your wizard, witch or what have you can do anything at a moment's notice and without limits, then what's the point of your villain being there? Your wizard will just turn him into a pile of evil-smelling goo. Like it or not, magic unbalances your world, so you need a counter-balance -- otherwise, your wizard becomes a munchkin. (Not sure if you know what this is, so in summary: a "munchkin" is a very old D&D term for a character that can do anything / go anywhere / defeat any monster, etc. By extension, that term is also attached to the player who plays the character. For that reason, munchkins are intensely despised by the D&D community). I'm probably going to get some flack over this, but this is also (one of) my reasons for disliking both the Lord of the Rings films and the Harry Potter films. Now, before the rest of the board flames me into charbroiled steak, please, hear me out. This is only a minor point; by and large, I think both the LOTR and HP films are fine... but... Gandalf, Saruman, and Dumbledore are all very, very powerful, and in the films, they seem to be able to do anything they want, and without breaking a sweat. (There is only one exception to this: when Gandalf the Gray confronts the Balrog, on the Bridge of Khazad-dûm). So if that's the case, why are Aragorn et al. there at all? Tolkien knew this, and in his books, he describes -- whenever Gandalf casts a spell, and especially when he was confronted with a counter-spell -- how exhausted Gandalf was. (Think back to the party being chased by countless orcs in Khazad-dûm; Gandalf shuts the door behind them with a spell, is countered by the Balrog's counter-spell, and runs after the rest of the party ... and when he finds them, he is absolutely worn out). In the movie, he looks fine. So, that's my quibble. As I said before, this is only a minor point, so please don't feed me to Smaug. As for Kalisto's question: even if you don't describe your entire system in the story, I think it's a good idea to set it down in writing, even if it's just a guide for yourself. This is the best thing you can do: you can always change it and refer back to it, so when people (and especially agents) ask you awkward questions, you have answers ready. If you don't have this, then when you say 'it's only magic', this naturally invites questions. What kind of magic? Are there side-effects? What are they? Please, describe them. Etc. So, it helps to have your 'system' ready and defined. Exactly! Graham hit the nail exactly on the head. The same argument against the deus ex machina also applies, because otherwise, when something unexplainable happens, you could always say "A wizard did it". (Or, for another example - if a thief is caught with his pockets full of loot, he can say "A really, really big guy did it and ran away"). The same argument applies both to aliens and Atlantis. I'm sure you've all seen, or at least heard of, supposed historical documentaries (often on the History channel) that says "Aliens built the Pyramids!!!" or "It was Atlantis!!!" or, or, or, etc... groan. ***WARNING: short (but fun) rant*** I'm not sure what anyone else thinks about these, but me? After swearing at the TV for a bit, I ask the obvious question: why? Why should anyone believe this nonsense -- that anyone but the ancient Egyptians did it? I mean, isn't that kind of condescending towards the ancient Egyptians? "Oh, but they were primitive! They must have had help from--" No. Stop right there. If we're going to argue that, then we may as well argue that the ancient Greeks didn't build the Parthenon, that the ancient Brits didn't build Stonehenge, etc., etc. "But, but, but ... it was magic!" Nope, it was engineering. If anything we don't understand has to be magic, then let's make sacrifices to Demeter, so she'll stop the drought and we'll have a successful harvest!! And let's beseech Zeus not to aim his lightning bolts at our power stations and cause a blackout! And let's burn the evil witch, 'cos she cast a magic spell and sank my ship! And besides, she's got a wart and a pointy nose -- oooh! Anyway. Sorry to digress, but in short: I agree with Graham. No problem, and I agree with you. I enjoyed Star Wars for what it was -- a space opera -- and like all opera, it had a huge, convoluted plot, with lots of weird characters, and didn't make much sense. But hey! Wasn't it pretty, huh? (Don't get me wrong, I love opera, and have performed it for years. But some of the plots in some of the operas have holes big enough for me to drive a semi-trailer through). As for Star Wars' magic system ... yes, I agree. If you don't (for instance) set limitations on the power of The Force, then it ceases to have any meaning. You may as well walk into that hive of scum and villainy on Tattooine ... and use The Force to levitate a can of Budweiser from the bar, use The Force to open the can, and then use The Force to trick the barman into not seeing you. "These are not the droids you are looking for." (And yes, I loved what Mel Brooks did with The Force. "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine. Now let's see how you can 'handle' it"). This is also -- and I apologise if this pisses someone off, but ... -- this is also why I don't like it when stores start selling Hot Cross Buns in January. If I can have a Hot Cross Bun any time I like, then when Easter rolls around, it makes the whole experience meaningless. Anyway, I've rambled long enough. What do the rest of you think, hmm?
I think that's my point. Obviously if the author breaks their own rules they seriously damage the integrity of the story. But that risk is no reason to avoid setting out the rules; to eschew rules altogether is to almost certainly weaken and maybe destroy the integrity of the story. Only life itself gets to deploy Superhorse. and I suspect that's because Life knows the rules better than we mortal authors do.
Sure, but before the author can break their own rules, he/she must write them down; otherwise, it's impossible to keep track of them, right? There's no need to "show" the reader your entire magic system. I'm only saying that the author should write down how magic works in his/her universe, as a guide for his/her own reference. If necessary, that can always be changed or tweaked later.
Personally I only ever liked the first movie (the one now called Episode 4: A New Hope). I always said each sequel was about half as good as the one before it. I tried to watch the Lucas prequels but couldn't get more than a few minutes into the first one. I made it through The Farce Awakens but was severely underwhelmed, and have had zero interest in the franchise ever since.
The Force Awakens is the only one I checked out of interest. I was so bored I remember nothing. My mind erased it from memory, lol.
Most magic "systems" have implied rules, whether they are stated or not. I have never found the need to explicitly define either magic or powers, because I don't write stories in the way that needs them to be defined. Dr. Strange doesn't need to define what his magic can do - mostly because his powers can do whatever the writer at the time needs them to do (as is true of pretty much any superhero). It's not dissimilar to the difference between hard and soft sci-fi, or science-fantasy.
I get it. I feel the same way about Star Trek. And yes, I agree that even though I love Star Wars, the magic is getting a bit stale, Disney. Does EVERY Show need a Jedi? Anyway, back to the point of this thread. I think @ps102 is spot on in the first reply. I think it depends on the reader and if the reader likes a hard or soft magic system. For me, I lean heavily toward hard magic that cannot be bent for plot reasons. Sure, sometimes, there is a surprise expansion, like a character with laser powers discovering they can also be used for healing. But as a reader, I personally like a hard system. It's not that the soft systems are not thought out. No. JRRT most likely spent a lot of time thinking about with Gandalf could and could not do. But as the reader, I am left in the dark. Which, makes it hard for the reader to understand why Gandalf can do some things and not others. This is where Deus Ex Machina is used by readers, because they are not in the author's head and have no concept of the limitations. If your readers are confused by the magic system, maybe it's time for a personal re-think. You do not have to share the details, but perhaps there is some inconsistency that is bothering a reader. However, I say the above with a big asterisk. This is your story and you can write it however you damn well please. There will always be people who hate or love it. Write for yourself first.
"Well, Frodo, you see, I can only cast that level 9 spell once per day because I have 900 MP, and it needs 899 MP, but if I deactivate all systems, divert power to the warp core and activate the Bussard collectors, I can collect omicron particles and channel enough MP to go Super Saiyan 3, and..." Thanks, but no thanks from me.
Agreed. But this is kinda what I mean by hard magic system. If the reader knows Gandalf can only cast 2 spells day, it's interesting to watch him use them carefully, or waste them on accident. I know I am the minority vote here, but I enjoy transparency to magic systems. I think that's what people are asking for, more than a hard or soft system. It's merely transparency so that the world, characters, and story have some logical structure.
Pardon me for digressing, but ... Of course it does! *crosses arms and taps foot sternly* Don't you know that Disney thinks their audiences are a bunch of idiots with the attention span of a moth in a hurricane? A Star Wars film has to have a Jedi, otherwise (so the Disney thinking goes) the audience wouldn't know who to root for. And now, back to our usual programming. Very true. Feel free to take our advice (above) as Truth Set In Stone, or feel free to totally ignore it and do your own thing. It's your story, and if you come up with some totally new approach, that's fine. You've just told your own story, not someone else's.
